PSI - Issue 28

C. Soupramanien et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 28 (2020) 1733–1744 C.Soupramanien et al./ StructuralIntegrity Procedia 00 (2019) 000–000

1736

4

100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 True Stress, MPa

True Stress-Strain Curve FEM Result

0 50

0.00

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10

0.12

0.14

True Strain

in comparison with experimented true stress - true strain tensile results which is shown in fig. 2. � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � Fig. 2. Correlation of True stress-strain curve from experimental and FEM results.

(5)

4. FEM Methodology 4.1. 2D FEM

ABAQUS 2018 commercial software was used for the 2D and 3D finite element analyses. For Plane strain and Plane stress 2D Finite element analysis, full C(T) specimen geometry with W = 50 mm was used. Eight node plane strain element with reduced integration (CPE8R) in 2D Plane Strain (PE) FEA, eight node plane stress (PS) element with reduced integration (CPS8R) in 2D Plane Stress (PS) FEA as shown in Fig. 4(a) are used. Model is properly partitioned and structured mesh is applied around the crack-tip region. Modified Boundary Layer model as shown in fig. 3 along with axial displacement derived from Williams, M., 1957 are used to find the �� under Small Scale Yielding with T-stress = 0. 4.2. 3D FEM As shown in fig. 5, Geometrical model of C(T) specimens with W=50 mm, B = 20 mm with the following side groove conditions are considered for 3D finite element analysis.  Without side groove  With U- side groove (angle = 0°)  With V- side groove (angle = 45°)